June 20, 2007

Let's talk about the onion-ring shaped vortex I started yesterday. All I did was a little casual Freudian interpretation of a Hillary Clinton campaign video. It was a short film, premised on the much-interpreted final scene of "The Sopranos," with Bill and Hillary Clinton seated at a table in a diner, sitting in for Tony and Carmela Soprano. Acting!

Maybe you just sit there pleasantly and think: Isn't it clever for Hillary to use the "Sopranos" scene as a device for informing us about her new campaign song and to include some cute business where she alludes to her concern about health care by having a nice bowl of carrots instead of the onion rings they had on "The Sopranos"? If so, aren't you the good little voter, accepting the message Senator Clinton hoped to insert in your receptacle of a brain? The famously controlled former First Lady is pleased there are people like you.

Me, I'm not so obedient. Even though I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and may very well vote for Hillary, I don't accept these things at face value. What's more I love a ripe opportunity for interpretation, including comic interpretation with sexual, Freudian content. What are you going to say: "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? You simply cannot say that when Bill Clinton is in the picture. In the whole history of the world, if there is one person for whom a cigar was not just a cigar, it's Bill Clinton.

So here's the passage -- ooh, a passage! -- that got people so excited:

Bill says "No onion rings?" and Hillary responds "I'm looking out for ya." Now, the script says onion rings, because that's what the Sopranos were eating in that final scene, but I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion that, coming from Bill Clinton, the "O" of an onion ring is a vagina symbol. Hillary says no to that, driving the symbolism home. She's "looking out" all right, vigilant over her husband, denying him the sustenance he craves. What does she have for him? Carrot sticks! The one closest to the camera has a rather disgusting greasy sheen to it. Here, Bill, in retaliation for all of your excessive "O" consumption, you may have a large bowl of phallic symbols! When we hear him say "No onion rings?," the camera is on her, and Bill is off-screen, but at the bottom of the screen we see the carrot/phallus he's holding toward her. Oh, yes, I know that Hillary supplying carrots is supposed to remind that Hillary will provide us with health care, that she's "looking out for" us, but come on, they're carrots! Everyone knows carrots are phallic symbols. But they're cut up into little carrot sticks, you say? Just listen to yourself! I'm not going to point out everything.

See that phrase "I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion"? That's an awfully cheap trick, a way to prod bloggers to write about the post. But nobody with any decent readership is dumb enough to say Althouse is crazy to think everyone will agree with that. Right?

I'm saying outright: Come on, everybody, into the vortex. And in they hop. It's an anti-Althousiana fest. I love it!

According to Memeorandum, my onion-rings-are-vagina-symbols story ranks second only to Mayor Bloomberg's leaving the Republican Party. (I'll try to do a free-form Freudian riff on Bloomberg later, perhaps: The O in GOP traumatized him. Ever notice that GOP could be pronounced "go pee"? (I doubt if any blogger who reads that can continue to view me as a "wingnut."))

So let's survey the onion-ring subgenre of anti-Althousiana:

First, let's see what TRex has to say. Surely, a guy who named himself after the biggest, most ferocious dinosaur will have a useful perspective on sexual imagery in film. He begins with the least creative approach found in the anti-Althousianan literature: assertions that Professor Althouse is crazy. I think the poor man knows this is a cliché, because he desperately grasps for colorful ways to say it. He comes up with "a few balloon animals shy of a birthday party" and "on the short bus to Woof-Woof Land." This is mainly padding though. Let's get to the specifics. He quotes me, then says:

Uhhhhhh, hold up, wait a minute. This blogger strongly disagrees and I’m sure if you gave me a couple minutes, I could run out in the yard and round up a couple dozen more, at least.

Ah, ha ha ha ha ha! Good lord, is it really this easy? Now, I'm laughing, but starting to feel a little sad. I don't think TRex is the dumbest guy in the world, yet he wrote something that I had assumed no one was dumb enough to say.

His post is padded with comments from my blog, but his main substance is this:

Apparently in the Mind of Ann Althouse absolutely anything (even something as innocuous as a humble onion ring) gets larded down with layers of psycho-sexual significance when it’s submerged in the warm, sticky tide of sexual charisma that surrounds our former president like a fog.

No, when I saw the onion rings in the final scene of "The Sopranos," I, like many other people, thought they represented communion wafers. The context counts. Here the context was Bill Clinton and the wife he has notoriously cheated on for years. He's saying he wants onion rings, and she's imposing carrots on him. That cries out for psycho-sexual interpretation. It's not the intent of the film's auteur -- unless he's a traitor to Clinton -- but it's imagery that they should have noticed as they were writing the script. TRex seems to want to let them off the hook by acting like associating Bill Clinton with sex is a weird little problem of mine. I don't think so!

Hillary wants to take advantage of Bill in her campaign. Fine. I understand the motivation. But she's got to figure out how to overcome the negatives. Whenever we see them together, we think about their relationship and what he did to it. There is complexity there. She can't expect us to just put that aside. She may be able to compartmentalize as she pursues her goal, but why would we?

TRex brings up last year's biggest anti-Althousiana topic: my interpretion of a photograph of Bill Clinton with a group of bloggers who'd just had lunch with him. That lunch was, ostensibly, an effort to help the Hillary Clinton campaign by using Bill's clout to influence bloggers to think well of her. In the photograph, the woman posed in front of Bill had the effect -- I argued -- of reminding us of Monica Lewinsky. This illustrated the problem of Hillary attempting to use Bill in the campaign.

Here's what TRex says about that now:

Looks like we now have conclusive proof that the whole Unpleasantness from last fall was just a spasm of Althouse’s mania to compulsively eroticize anything and anyone (apparently up to and including innocent foodstuffs) that is unlucky enough to be photographed with Big Dog. I wonder if [the woman in the photograph] realizes now that she could have been wearing a blouse made of prepared vegetables and the reaction would have been exactly the same.

Of course, a "blouse made of prepared vegetables" (why "prepared"?) would have been outrageously suggestive. But what the hell? TRex is intent on denying that Bill Clinton's reputation has a big sexual dent in it. And, by the way, vegetables are not that innocent. Don't you know that they dream of responding to you? Why else are they covered with dew?

Second, let's look at Glenn Kenny, who's the Premiere film critic I got into a bit of a dispute with last week. He makes a show of refraining from attacking me and noting that he gets the song reference, then taking up the idea that it was elitist to use "The Sopranos," shows us what film references the Clintons might make if they were really elitist. Let's move on.

Third, we have Scott Lemieux, whose is probably the biggest hack in the anti-Althousiana genre. He writes about me frequently, even though he can't think of much beyond the usual clichés about how I'm crazy, stupid, drunk, and so forth. It's sad. This is his new effort:

I really hope that she wasn't kidding with the "no blogger will disagree" bit.

Why does he hope I wasn't kidding? I assume that's a mistake. He seems to be somewhat less dim than TRex, even though his writing is duller. But TRex only seems un-dull because he reaches for those phrases like "short bus to Woof-Woof Land" that are typical of second-rate comic writing. Back to Scott:

A consuming obsession with Bill Clinton's sex life is merely banal among American conservatives, and with Althouse more than well-established in any case, but the assumption that it's universal is special.

Oh, lord, that man is boring! This may be the first time I've ever linked to him, even though he writes about me all the time. Someone in his comments says:

It would seem that you have your own obsession with Ann Althouse. I have visited her blog and don't see the reciprocity. I suspect that you have the perfect relationship; you follow every move she makes and she simply isn't aware or doesn't care.

Yeah, well, poor little Scott -- who's actually a political science professor -- will have to satisfy himself alone again for a good long while, because I really don't care. He's too boring! Or should I say merely banal among anti-Althousian scribblers.

Fourth, Instaputz displays a picture of me and then says sexual things about me. If I were a Yale law student, I'd sue him, and I could even leverage my way into federal court with a copyright claim. (I have a Creative Commons license on my photographs in Flickr, but he omits the required attribution and, in any event, it's obvious that I didn't take this picture so the license isn't mine to give.) By the way a "putz" is a little penis, so he might want to order the fried calamari instead of the onion rings.

Fifth, Roy at Alicublog is in the vortex, even though, as usual, he's got nothing interesting to say. My post made him "think of Matt Taibbi, a progressive who is famously embarrassed by the 'silly' American Left." He goes on:

I say that for all the "guys on stilts wearing mime makeup and Cat-in-the-Hat striped top-hats" Taibbi notices on the left, I see an equal number, at least, of Althousean clowns on the right, as this blog documents.

Yeesh. He's got that Greenwaldian verbosity. Translation: My post is silly. Too bad that with all those words, he can't come up with a single substantive point. Another inconsequential contribution to anti-Althousiana. How embarrassing for little Roy.

I just want to emphasize that I stand by my original sexual interpretation. You've got a married couple talking about two foods, one of which is obviously a hole, and the other of which is so clearly phallic that this Google search gets over 70,000 hits.

The man wants the hole-shaped item, and the woman forbids it. She insists that he confine himself to the phallic item, which has been sliced down to puny, thin stick form. The man looks at it sadly, and the woman tells him it's for his own good. If you don't see sexual imagery there, you exist on a very narrow band of human imagination....

When Clinton sadly bites into the carrot stick of his own castration, it makes a crunch noise -- ouch! -- and it's that noise that causes the ominous looking man at the bar ("Johnny Sack") to turn and look at him. He then walks by and gives him a glare. What does that glare mean in the Clinton video? I think it means: "What kind of man are you?"

Whatever this post is about, what I saw in the Hillary commercial is a confirmation of just how hopelessly wooden she is, especially relative to her husband. If the purpose was to make her more appealing, regular folks and all that, it failed.

What ricpic says. There are two problems with Hillary using Bill in her campaign: One, the whole sex thing. Two, he's a definite natural politician -- whether that's good or bad, I won't say -- and she's just so mechanical in comparison.

He oozes charm. She oozes anti-freeze. A politician is going to have to charm you into voting for them, and she's not up to the task. Seeing him just reinforces that.

Well, as funny as this exchange is---and therefore, as glad as I am that you started it!---I have to admit that the Freudian interpretation fell flat with me. It just seemed like too much of a stretch, even with randy ol' Bill involved.

Dosen't the vortex swirl in the opposite direction in the Southern Hemisphere?

One Gestaltist technique to dream and fantasy interpretation suggests that everything in the dream or fantasy represents aspects of the dreamer.

At any rate, Ms. Althouse wrote, among other things:

Hillary wants to take advantage of Bill in her campaign. Fine. I understand the motivation. But she's got to figure out how to overcome the negatives. Whenever we see them together, we think about their relationship and what he did to it. There is complexity there. She can't expect us to just put that aside. She may be able to compartmentalize as she pursues her goal, but why would we?

I think this is a perceptive observation.

Bill disintegrated so many boundaries, as did the media, the special prosecutor, and other branches of government in the process of grappling with it. The boundaries between Bill, Hillary, Monica, Linda, etc. and the public also began to blur. Personally, I suck at compartmentalizing, even on my best days. Mix up all of the powerful impulses and forces at play with Bill and the gang, and for me, it becomes next to impossible. I have to think that the ubiquity of the 24-7 media coverage heightens the intensity of any breach of boundaries (there is some research that tends to support this, at least with respect to violence).

The whole question of respect for boundaries, privacy, and behavioral rules etc. in reference to our leaders is really an outstanding question, that, no doubt will become politicized.

Y'know, my reaction to the whold onion ring thing was that it was clever but overdrawn, OBVIOUSLY an extended joke. The virulence of the reactions may say more about the commenters than about AA. Reminds me of my own reactions to Bill C, back in the day....

You'll eat those carrots and like them!" Her portrayal of "concerned uber-mom for the entire USA" is an accurate reflection of her underlying Plan for micromanaging our lives, down to the prescribed dose of carrots, whether phallic or not, because dammit, she's in charge and she's ordering for the whole damned table so sit down and enjoy them right now or I'll give you something to cry about.

Positroll said...He's saying he wants onion rings, and she's imposing carrots on him. Even worse, she is imposing a chopped carrot on him ...

Technically, the carrots aren't chopped and does she really impose the carrot stick on him? She orders "for the table" and he chooses, glumly and dutifully, to chomp down on one.

So now it's Bill's mouth, not an onion ring, that symbolizes a vagina (vagina dentata?) - the same mouth that smoked the blue dress-wearing intern's post-masturbation cigar in the Oval Office - the same office Hillary desires to officially occupy.

Bill Clinton is a serial (cereal) womanizer. Hillary is a serial enabler married to a lech. The left-wing loons refuse to admit that Bill Clinton did anything wrong up to, an including, Lewinsky. So much for their morality!

I immediately saw the sexual innuendo of the carrots and onion ring metaphor. Hillary is sending a subliminal message that she has Bill (Depends on what the definition of 'IS' is) on a short leash. If elected she will not turn the Lincoln bedroom into a bordello for Cigar Bill and a bunch of horny interns looking to share power and a blue dress.

Any attempt to ignore the obvious inference to be drawn from this presentation is either denial, ignorance, or both. The Clinton's don't do anything without thoroughly planning it's effects on the targeted audience.

Like Bill obsessively pursuing women, Hillary obsessively pursues power. Unfortunately for her, Bill is infinitely more successful at handling young women than Hillary is at handling power.

In a way, that awful Bill comes off as a sympathetic character in Hill's vid. She's on time and waiting. (His coming in after her is mildly suggestive that he's been off on his own...) She selects "for the table" without hesitation or apology. She didn't need the menu, since her mind's made up. She's over-controlling and shows no zest for life. That little carrot stick he holds up unhappily is what his "thing" now looks like.

The Republicans offer little in the way of palatable candidates for me. Giuliani? Please -- the man was too busy talking and making money to help with the Iraq Study Group to help find a way out of the mess. Are we meant to take him seriously now? McCain is done. Romney? He is a Republican Kerry (except he's much better looking). All bloggers will agree with me when I say that the only reason Fred Thompson gets any looks -- other than his bodacious wife -- is because the rest of the field offers only yesterday's rehashed leftovers.

Hillary is sending a subliminal message that she has Bill (Depends on what the definition of 'IS' is) on a short leash. If elected she will not turn the Lincoln bedroom into a bordello for Cigar Bill and a bunch of horny interns looking to share power and a blue dress.

Only way that Hillary will be able to control Bill in the White House again is to have the Secret Service hound him 24/7, and she won't do that. I think that she'd much rather let him start playing his games again, and then throw him out of the White House in the ultimate display of vagina power, filing for divorce in the bargain.

I've liked the last 8 years of the Bushes in the White House for this very reason; no matter how you feel about them, the Bushes make the Presidency about the issues, not some low-rent white trash soap opera that embarasses the country.

So what comes next? On his birthday she buys him a new gift-- a cigar cutter?

One thing I do have trouble with though-- people who insist on blaming Hillary for Bill's dalliance with Monica, and then seek to justify their blaming her by suggesting that if she had any sense of moral outrage she'd have divorced him.

In fact, both of those reactions are insulting at a very deep level. How is the wife of a cheating husband responsible for his wandering? That sort of logic has been used for a long time (something about 'if she'd just taken care of him better...') and it is absolutely and flagrantly false, sexist and a disgusting attempt to re-victimize the only legitimate victim of Bill's philandering.

The second part, that she should have divorced him over it is also insulting. Many people whose spouses are unfaithful do divorce them. But also many people whose spouses are unfaithful don't. Marriages are not all the same and frankly it is not up to those whose only objective is to defeat Hillary and/or Bill politically to advise her about how to handle her marriage, or condemn her when she doesn't do what they want her to.

Oh, and whatever the Clinton's problems are, they pale in comparison to the first couple of the French Socialist party-- Segolese Royal, who recently lost a close election for President of France, is separating from her partner (they were never married-- in France that is no big deal) who is the father of her four children but recently had had quite a few affairs, and will now run for the leadership of the Socialist party-- against HIM!

Isn't it clever for Hillary to use the "Sopranos" scene as a device for informing us about her new campaign song and to include some cute business where she alludes to her concern about health care by having a nice bowl of carrots instead of the onion rings they had on "The Sopranos"? If so, aren't you the good little voter, accepting the message Senator Clinton hoped to insert in your receptacle of a brain?

God, I think it sucks that the struggle for the most powerful position on the planet is waged with ads and campaign songs. We really are a stupid people, deserving of the selfish, no-talent hacks who lead us.

You'd have more traction to your theory if Jungian analysis had the onion ring archetyped in classical mythology as symbolic for the vagina. Alas, it isn't.

But on another Jungian level I'll concede that a bit of synchronicity may be going on with respect to Hillary's expressed health concerns in the video's about greasy deep-fried onion rings ("I'm looking out for you") and how if you were to substitute big-haired bimbos for onion rings it'd work just the same. Something operating on a subconscious level there?

But, then, don't forget that other operation, Bill's heart surgery. "I'm looking out for you" takes on a personal heart-felt feeling when you keep that in mind.

So, like somebody else already said, sometimes an onion ring is just an onion ring.

But this is what's really scary:

"Even though I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 and may very well vote for Hillary, I don't accept these things at face value."

You are full well willing to plumb the depths of these people's joint depravities, their psychopathologies, and everything all that implies, their sham marriage, analyze it all, and then hold it up to the light and twist it like a kaleidoscope to see what else you can shake of it of it, and after all of which you still "may well vote for Hillary." Jung would say much about that too. One thing you may have lain out for examination is the prototypical Bill Clinton - Hillary Clinton voter and supporter. And I'm also thinking that somewhere in that dynamic is where the seeds to all that anti-Althousia are planted.

Its just funny how people are so willing to jump into the vortex and shed their intellect (or any appearance of one). So easily drawn in, its no wonder that 9/11 and Bushilterhalliburton conspiracies get so much attention.

Hillary showed some warmth but Bill's line were out of sync- I doubt he even knows what Smashmouth music sounds like and he hastily sqgued into "everyone wants to know what won". I bet majority of people were not aware of theme song contest and then they choose a Canadian singer!! Thatwas dumb.

And the nanny-state thing came across loud and clear.

Last- they chose the Sopranos tie-in to try and be cool and with it. I don't think they achieved that goal.

She "ordered for the table" because that was the line from the famous Sopranos final scene!

I mean, talk about not getting the joke!

Hey, JD-

Ever hear of lit, artistic and ad devices having more than one meaning? You know, connotations on different levels or with different associations? Even if you never studied English, art or marketing, this is a rather obvious fact about symbol and meaning. Talk about not getting the point!

Boy, where could you possibly get a more unbiased view of Bill and especially Hillary, than the nutcases here.

Ann's insane theory that the onion rings represent vaginas, with the carrots as phallic symbols is so ridiculous it's hard to believe it originates with a law professor??(Try to imagine her students reading this drivel.)

The entire post also illustrates what I've said on many occasions: Ann does her best to represent herself as some kind of highly intellectual independent thinker, when in reality, she's really no different than that other monumental example of intellect and objectivity...Jonah Goldberg.

*I'd put Ann in the class of a Rush Limbaugh, but he at least appears to finally understand that he's much more a comedian than a political guru.

Serial philanderers don't belong in the White House as leaders of the free world. Serial enablers display a lack of character for enabling and condoning the behavior in question.

Moral lapses/weaknesses such as that preclude them from positions of authority and role models. Their character is impeachable and suspect. If Hillary gains the nomination, expect the full range of disclosures on her illegal activities at Rose, various investments, and her handling of the ill-fated health plan, among others. Her own people from the bubba years have already gone on record against her and her ability to serve.

J.D. -- You have devoted entirely too many words to blunt, unsubtle, poorly unorganized criticism here to seriously claim that it is Althouse who seeks attention. Also, if you don't want her to have attention, don't provide it.

Yeah if. Nothing’s over till the fat lady sings and considering we’re 18 months out, I’m pretty comfortable saying if Hillary wins. She can easily pull a Howard Dean between now and then. I have a six pack that she does. Kerry was supposed to be a shoe in till he stuck it in his mouth.

The Republicans offer little in the way of palatable candidates for me.

Well if you’re willing to settle for Hillary then I’d figure that no GOP candidate would be palatable to you.

All bloggers will agree with me when I say that the only reason Fred Thompson gets any looks -- other than his bodacious wife -- is because the rest of the field offers only yesterday's rehashed leftovers.

C’mon MM as opposed to the Dems? What’s new and exciting there except the Barrack who is indistinguishable from Hillary on policy? The rest of the Dem field is pretty much a re-run of 2004.

If we've learned anything from Ann in the last two days, it's that a neatly slivered section of her medulla would unquestionably fetch top dollar from any major medical research laboratory in the country.

The capacity on the left to be unable to get a fractionally sophisticated joke and at the same time be able to laugh at blunt non-humor that is meant to be funny just isn't funny (and isn't made more funny by the use of exclamation points!!!) is apparently boundless.

It's a lot of mental masturbation and Althouse is laughing at anyone who takes her too seriously.

In my mind this brings up Ann's outburst on bloggingheads TV. If you go back and look, Ann did not react right away when Garance said "the Valenti breast controversy." Ann purses her lips, smiles sardonically, waits about 20 seconds and THEN goes off. It appears somewhat calculated.

Many are being dragged (unknowingly) into the vortex because you don't "get" what Ann is doing here.

The capacity on the left to be unable to get a fractionally sophisticated joke and at the same time be able to laugh at blunt non-humor that is meant to be funny just isn't funny (and isn't made more funny by the use of exclamation points!!!) is apparently boundless.

Have you come across any treatments for leftists arrested in their schoolyard bully ways? Or perhaps they're suffering the debilitating effects of second childhood, and the first wasn't so good. Or, given the outbursts, language and tics, Tourette's? Suppose they're other conditions characterized by spittle-flecked spasms and paroxysmal attacks. An untreatable case of no manners?

J.D.: Yeah, that's exactly it. Althouse has popular blog wherein she posts her opinions. That's the point of the blog and people pay attention to her opinions. Calling her an "attention whore" means calling anyone who proffers their opinions an "attention whore" and, under your theory, the more widely-read a person is, the more of an "attention whore" the person is.

You, on the other hand, are an attention whore. Nobody cares about your opinions. Nobody reads your books. You are insignificant. Yet you wail into the void that people who are far, far more significant than you are -- that these people are "attention whores" because people pay attention to them..

The subtext of everything you say -- and it's not a very deep subtext -- is: pay attention to me, not the person I am criticizing.

1. "200 of you nutcases have reviewed my "highly intellectual" profile"Congrats, lucky. Quite an achievement. Although that reflexive query occurs mostly when people are trying to answer the question, Is he older than 15?

2. could you run a list of anything YOU'VE published?Yes, I could. But Mr. Rhoades' success is impressive regardless. His writing here begs the question though, who's ghostwriting his novels?

3. Jane, I suspect an underdeveloped frontal lobe (lack of sense of humor), Parkinsonian Socialist Ideology Syndrome (stuck in the 1930s) and Hypercredulous Intussusception Sinistrous (swallows anything from the left).

Incurable, unfortunately, except after being mugged of course.

4. JD, really, attention whoring ain't so bad. Failing to admit it is a bit unscrupulous, but if it keeps you writing, paid, and off the streets, so be it.

As long as you're insulting someone else's writing, Pogo, this is a good opportunity point out a commonly misused term in your own.

"Begs the question" is not just a fancy way to say "raises the question." Question-begging is a specific logical fallacy. It's when you assume the conclusion to your argument in formulating your premises.

"That begs the question" is a charge that the argument is flawed in this way, not that it brings up an additional point.

The accusation "what books have you written?" comes up when people are angry about something else. It's an ad hominem attack.

The books I have written are for a specific imprint related to a publicly-traded company. They do move well because they are annual books, but at the end of the day they are tradebooks.

Anyone who thinks about the description combined with information in some other posts can figure out basically what I have written. Unlike J.D., who apparently writes about guys named DeGroot in books no one reads, and who can therefore afford to spout inanities, my opinions are my opinions and have nothing to do with the books I write professionally.

I think using Jungian symbolism is esoteric outside of Boulder, Colorado, the epicenter for that particular world view. So I support Ann's analysis (heh heh, that one slipped in) in this case.

Onion rings are Freudian, and they work. You could even squeeze them into early object relations theory. But Jungian stuff is not mainstream, even if it can be very powerful and helpful for the right person.

Wow - never been here before, and likely won't be back (unless there's something as bug shit crazy as this post to laugh at again). Entertaining to see the author try to justify the original ludicrous post. But what is wrong with you? I've eaten a lot of onion rings, and i've never made the vagina association before. Same goes for the other way around. Does the author's vagina make her think of onion rings? Might want to see a specialist about that.

Even if you didn't see the show (and I didn't), you have to be living in a cave not to know the actual show had onion rings in it.

If I was really attention whoring, I wouldn't have used the sledgehammer line "I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion," which (I thought) was a wink saying I bet you can't resist slamming me for this. I think the smarter bloggers would have realized that's exactly why they should resist.

From Wikipedia: In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding

Isn't this pretty much what Professor Althouse has admitted doing here?

J.D. -- Shouldn't you be writing to The Onion and complaining that some of the quotes they use aren't real?

Althouse signaled to anyone with a milligram of common sense that she was having some fun with this, that she was going over the top to make her point. You couldn't see it. Apparently, you still don't. That makes you the idiot.

seven,i've never met an "author" in my life who doesn't want people to read what they've written. part of it's ego, part is to see what others think of their work.

it sounds like you write tech manuals or trade publications.

as for me, i spent years writing spec scripts and did re-writes for features and t.v.

i optioned three of them, came very close to having a feature produced (lost out to "look who's talking"), and now periodically send along treatments or ideas that i think will garner interest from agents and producers i've dealt with.

*as for my lack of military experience, can i assume you're implying that if one is against the iraqi fiasco, they have to have served before rendering any opinion? (and if so, that pretty much leaves cheney/rummy/wolfie/rove and damn near everybody at the american enterprise institute out of the mix, too.)

T-Mink Onion rings are Freudian, and they work. You could even squeeze them into early object relations theory. But Jungian stuff is not mainstream, even if it can be very powerful and helpful for the right person.

Ann Althouse said... My favorite part of all this is that whenever you guys order onion rings, you'll have to think of me. I now own onion rings.

We've got a little classical conditioning (or is it operant) going on as well..... (excuse me one second I am at McDonald's drive thru as I type this). Let's see if the Golden Arches (another metaphor) thanks you for the bump (another metaphor) in sales.

It is difficult for me to believe that a very intelligent man or woman would consider Hillary. I live in Louisiana and we have a first hand view of these two as Ark. is only a few miles away. They are both crooks, sex perverts and liers. She is definitely not good for the country.

In this regard, I would like to say that given the current problem that conservatives have with the Republican party, if the Dems. presented anyone who was half way decent, stopped talking about raising taxes and dropped the major social programs (health care), they could have the presidency, congress, everything for at least a decade.

Very funny stuff here. I just decided that I'm voting for Hillary in the hope that I can send her a cigar cutter as an inauguration gift. Then, as Bob said, I hope she will "throw him out of the White House in the ultimate display of vagina power, filing for divorce in the bargain." You could put Katie Couric up against Desperate Housewives with all that stuff going on.

J.D.: I claimed Althouse was "going over the top." I didn't find the initial post that interesting; it was a unique and clever review of a campaign stunt. Interesting, but certainly not worth a lot of time. What I do find interesting is how kooks on the left are going viral over Althouse's review.

Luck: For a guy who is always complaining that others can't read, you don't process information that well. I am asking you whether you attended West Point or VMI because you complain stupidly incessantly about people who did not serve in the military leading the country into war. You also miss my other point, so let me spell it out for you: publicly-traded companies with their names attached to books don't want my opinions about wholly unrelated topics attached to the publicly-traded companies. Also, I'm not an attention-whore like J.D.

And yet another reason for Bill not to have rings with messy ketch-up that could dribble, and be embarrassing and a pain to clean up :)

You're definitely on to something with the role reversal biz. Works for feminists, gays, and for people who wonder exactly who's going to be in charge in the next Clinton WH. Her no-nonsense B & W pants outfit was effective costuming for the show.

I have seen only one episode of the Sopranos, so the visual cues relating to the show were lost on me. I did however have a deep and visceral reaction to the line "I ordered for the table". It screamed, I will arbitrarily and cpriciously restrict your choices. Then, when you see the thin gruel of a basket of carrot sticks, not even a veggi plater where you might have some choices, I get the shivering feeling that I am looking at an absolute authoritarian momma/nanny Clinton that won't let you even look at a menu. No, no, no she's going to select the cold, hardest to chew solution and that's it buba, thats all you get. No debate, no choice, no persuasion because "I'm lookin out fer ya" and mommie knows best. In the absence of the Soprano's references I would think that this would produce revulsion in a free, thinking, individual, adult, citizen looking for a leader, not a nanny. That Bill's grumbling acquiesence is all she will allow furthers the authoritarian image and infantilizes him and by extension, us. The mind music that goes with this in my head is the Rolling Stones "Under my Thumb". I hear Hillary screeching.

He's under my thumb.

That scurvey dog who once had his day.

It's down to me, the change has come.

He's under my thumb.

Is this what she has in mind for the rest of us? I give this scene a big raspberry but perhaps it should be lauded, for, in my estimation, exposing the true nature of the candidate.

The psychosexual stuff that Ann posted about never crossed my mind but it sure was effective in terms of increasing the velocity of the vortex. Ha, Ha, good one Ann. On the other hand, the only associative image that I've ever had for a grown man called Soprano was, a castrati. I've often wondered why they chose this name for the family and if it was intentionally ironic. I don't follow television.

n says: "For a guy who is always complaining that others can't read, you don't process information that well. I am asking you whether you attended West Point or VMI because you complain stupidly incessantly about people who did not serve in the military leading the country into war." ("stupidly incessantly"???...and you say you're a "writer?")

uh, seven...i "comment" on the iraqi situation. cheney and the other chickenhawks actually spearheaded the invasion.

lee david says: "I have seen only one episode of the Sopranos, so the visual cues relating to the show were lost on me. I did however have a deep and visceral reaction to the line "I ordered for the table". It screamed, I will arbitrarily and cpriciously restrict your choices."

Roost on the Moon corrects my use of "begs the question", for which I am eternally grateful.

Even Wikipedia, though mentions its common alternative use, so it would have been "wrong" only if I were in fact attempting to cite a logical fallacy, for which that technical term applies.

"More recently, "begs the question" has been used as a synonym for "invites the question" or "raises the question," or to indicate that "the question ought to be addressed." In this usage, "the question" is stated in the next phrase. For example: "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" This usage has met with substantial resistance among logicians, academic philosophers, and prescriptive linguists. Although it is clear that this usage is disfavored in some circles, argument over whether this usage should be considered "incorrect" is an example of the debate between linguistic prescription and description."

Nevertheless, point taken, and consider the web a safer place for having served your role as today's grammar marm.

Ann Althouse said..."If I was really attention whoring, I wouldn't have used the sledgehammer line "I doubt if any blogger will disagree with my assertion," which (I thought) was a wink saying I bet you can't resist slamming me for this. I think the smarter bloggers would have realized that's exactly why they should resist."

it's too late, ann. everybody knows exactly what you were implying, so get off the "i really didn't mean it...wink, wink" crap.

I just wanted to add a post here to break up the boring litany of trolling by the same person, who apparently has no job. This could be an interesting thread if certain individuals who say much but add nothing would leave.

your idea of a "troll" is anyone who expresses a attitude or opinion, contrary to your own.

No LOS that's not it, and if you had been here awhile and been willing to participate in civil discourse without childish insults directed at everyone *you* disagree with, you might realize that. For instance, Elizabeth (aka Beth) from New Orleans has been around here for three or more years. I and others have frequently disagreed with her, but name calling and the kind of responses you use jane,are you on some kind of experimental medication? is not part of it.

So let's be honest, you're not here to discuss, you here to argue, insult and try to piss people off. Call yourself what you want.

Yes, I live in Louisiana and am telling you who to vote for. You see, we have lost the ability to chose our leaders in this state. The reason is that liberal interest came in and developed give away social programs. These were tied to soak the rich funds schemes. The result is that a politican can now buy votes with little difficulty. But in the post Katriana era, we have some hope. As all our problems were sent to your states and these purchased votes might not be available anytime soon.

Lee David: "On the other hand, the only associative image that I've ever had for a grown man called Soprano was, a castrati. I've often wondered why they chose this name for the family and if it was intentionally ironic."

Maybe it's a hint to watch the female family members, particularly Carmela and even more Livia. Unfortunately, we will never see the show that was intended back when they chose the title, because Nancy Marchand, who played the mother, Livia, died. Maybe the show was better because they had to think up something else, that had so much less to do with Tony's being in therapy, but I long to see the show death kept from us.

People like you are going to call her a nutcase no matter what she says.

Nah, mostly people like me just ignore her, until it gets too juicy to pass up.

After reading a bit of your profile and writings, I can understand how Althouse's success in getting the attention you so richly deserve is absolutely killing you, JD.

Yes, I'm eaten up with jealousy that blogger after blogger isn't commenting on how batshit insane I am. No one's called me "Bug. Fuck. Crazy" in weeks now, and I just can't stand the pain. I am, like, TOTALLY jealous.

Pretty much it's Althouse setting hook, bait, and reeling them in.

So I'll put you in the column of people who think she's not nutty, but trolling (in the commonly accepted definition, not the one stever and seven machos made up).

The sad part is that you think that's something to be proud of.

I just wanted to add a post here to break up the boring litany of trolling by the same person, who apparently has no job. This could be an interesting thread if certain individuals who say much but add nothing would leave.

So you make a post that you admit adds nothing so you can stop a "litany of trolling" from someone who you say adds nothing? Good job, that.

it's too late, ann. everybody knows exactly what you were implying, so get off the "i really didn't mean it...wink, wink" crap.

Ann and her fanboys remind me of the type of asshole bully who makes nasty wisecracks, blows cigar smoke in your face, then slaps you on the back and goes "HAW HAW HAW! Just kidding!" Except they aren't, and everyone knows it.

I wish I could say I was surprised by the incredible lack of humor in the anti-Althousian field.

Ace of Spades does this schtick where he's afraid of brown people and vaginas, in an obvious parody of how liberals view/portray conservatives. And yet, his detractors constantly use this as proof that he really is afraid of brown people and vaginas.

It reminds me of school days, as best portrayed by "The Simpsons," when Lisa opts to be a vegetarian:

Janie: Are you going to marry a carrot, Lisa?Lisa: [Rolling her eyes.] Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot.Sherri/Terri: Ohh! She admitted it. She's going to marry a carrot!

Mike: "Seven, I'm surprised at Ann's patience. He really has degraded the environment around here."

Which he are you talking about? Anyway, remember it's more trouble to delete than to ignore. If you think there are people here who are ruining the dialogue, please help me by not interacting with them. I don't have a way to ban people. I can only delete posts.

Staying with an unfaithful spouse can be admirable for a lot of reasons. However, Hill spent a lot of time denigrating the traditional role of faithful wife and housekeeper and famously said that she was NOT some Tammy Wynette, standing by her man.

So, you know, which is it? Was she just putting on a show before, or is she putting on a show now?

It calls to mind the current battle over earmarks and immigration: To wit, few in Washington will say what they mean. It's not an amnesty if we don't call it an amnesty. We hate pork, but we need special ways of inserting it anonymously into the budget. Etc.

Re: "Yes, I'm eaten up with jealousy that blogger after blogger isn't commenting on how batshit insane I am."

Actually, JD, I believe you are. I think it really kills you, as you find her undeserving and certainly the wrong sort. That book pic says it all: hey I wrote a book, so why are are you all looking at her, she' so crazy, c'mon guys, looka me, c'mon man, she didn't even write a cool book that's got explosions n stuff (see my pic?)"

Actually, JD, I believe you are. I think it really kills you, as you find her undeserving and certainly the wrong sort. That book pic says it all: hey I wrote a book, so why are are you all looking at her, she' so crazy, c'mon guys, looka me, c'mon man, she didn't even write a cool book that's got explosions n stuff (see my pic?)"

Your rage is almost palpable.

Heh. Another fool who thinks an Internet connection gives him the ability to read minds.

lee david,why not actually watch the sopranos before delving into ann's insanity.(and your term; "the Althousian sense of giving us the carrot"...says it all. duh)

as for the clinton video...it was a take-off on a very talked about final scene from a very-talked about and revered series.

the fact that ann and some of the others here see some kind of illusionary sexual innuendo attached tells me most of those here aren't getting fucked enough.(and i don't mean by bush and company...they're doing everybody everyday.)

JBlog said..."Good Grief, can you even imagine another Clinton White House."

yeah, those eight year of unsurpassed economic growth, no wars, little if any unemployment, paying off the national debt, and creating a massive surplus...who in their right mind would want to trade what we have now...with something like that?

than again, bill did get blowjobs so i guess the 3,531 dead and 25,950 wounded americans, our worldwide reputation in shambles, endless governmental scandals and being mired in the middle of a civil war in iraq is a fair trade-off.

Neither mind-reading nor telepathy are needed when your personality is quite evident in what you've written so far. You've laid it all out there for us in your bio, blog, books, and such. Mostly, I see rage, hence your novels.

"I'm saying outright: Come on, everybody, into the vortex. And in they hop. It's an anti-Althousiana fest. I love it!"

So, by your own admission, your posting (this one? all of them? who knows!) is simply your immature delusional way of feeding your own narcissism? A sad attempt to make yourself feel even marginally consequential to the world at large by trying to goad people into posting about you?

You really are a sad, sad little person aren't you?

You really should stop trying to find sexual meaning in EVERYthing, put down the box of Franzia, and perhaps see someone about these issues of yours, Ann.

Are you saying that you think that the name was indeed intentional and the castrati association would have been worked into the plot if the mother hadn't died. Thats pretty darn subtle for a TV show. I'd have to give the writers a lot of credit if it was intentional. It would make me chuckle.

As I mentioned in your original post, Hillary is playing the Tony part, and Bill the Carmela part, not the other way around. Instead of BS about onion rings and carrots, let's consider the Freudian implications of the gender role reversal. Penis envy?

I just knew you wouldn't let us down. You even managed to get in a little BDS. The rest of you are doing well too. 200 is just around the corner. The site meter is humming and 300 can't be far behind. Go Vortex.

The meds and queer smears are tired and juvenile, Luckyoldsonny. Do you put stuff like that in your scripts or whatever it is you claim to write? There's nothing remotely entertaining about underendowed men anonymously attacking people with grade school taunts. You're just a tedious oddity, that's all.

But I least I have an excuse. Acc. to Lucky, I'm a Creationist who goes to Creation Museums and pets the dinosaurs, I watch Fox TV and take marching orders from Hannity et al., I'm a nutty conspiratorialist who thinks there were "plots" surrounding Bill's philandering, I can't write near as well as he (since he's absolutely dazzling in his comments), and I'm on meds. Don't worry, he'll come up with more killer insults 'cause he's a real writer, you know.

We don't think you're crazy, Althouse. We just think you're an attention-starved Narcissist who deliberately makes stupid statements so people with websites can make fun of you. Then you claim, "It was all just a joke!" the next day. It happened with Jessica Valenti and you're doing it again.

I remember when lefties had a sense of humor. They were sexy then. Now... they're just political nerds. They don't no how to have fun. They're so damned protective of Bill Clinton, but at least Bill Clinton knows how to have fun. We would have mocked you, back when we were counterculture, radical hippies and feminists. But thanks for showing me what the all-time blogging hot button is. I plan to satisfy your rage needs on a regular basis.

That's easy. Carrot sticks aren't really cooked, per se, like onion rings. So, rather than say a blouse made entirely of cooked vegetables, or a blouse made entirely of raw vegetables, "prepared" was the fastest route to a compromise.

Ann--you are overly snippy and not all that amusing in your remarks...and of course, the typical defense is to call those on the Left names...how original!we each interpret the Sopranos ending in our own way...so too, the comments let us know exactly how the commenters feel and they had no need to view the video to tell us. After Bush and Cheney, I will take Hillary ...Iraq, signing statements, deficit, stem cells. No thanks. Jersey rules

ann says: "I remember when lefties had a sense of humor. They were sexy then. Now... they're just political nerds. They don't no how to have fun."

yeah, if only we could be more like duncan bombs away hunter, or evolution bad brownback or i got screwed lott or my wife's dying but i still date newt, or kill 'em all tacredo or my favorite...rock in the pond gravel.

I made a rule that I wanted to try to ignore Luck at some point this afternoon. But this is just too hideous to pass up. In the Luckster's world, George W. Bush is to blame for inflation. It's been low for 25 years, but any increase in prices is Bush's fault.

I'm going to come out and say it even though it's not my place at all: go away, Luckster. people who only seek to insult and are stupid should leave the intelligent, mature people on the left and the right to debate in peace. Please, dude. Go. Away.

Tom T: You're new around here. Take time to consider whether it's an old subject with a context known to insiders. Spend some time looking around and trying to understand what's happening here. Maybe you don't know what it is.

You should never have hit the "publish" button on this one or the other post, Ann.

When we amatuers start to play armchair psychologist, we end up looking stupid like Glenn Greenwald and his "analysis" of Bush's actions. If there has been anything shallower or laughably written lately than Greenwald's new book - excerpts at Salon.com - I haven't seen it. And you're not doing much better here.

You've done something that I didn't think possible - you've made people who despise the Clinton's actually stand up and defend them in a roundabout sort of way. The scene most certainly does not "cry out for a psycho-sexual interpretation." It's a political commercial for crissakes not frickin' Hamlet! And having been present during the creative process of these things, I can tell you that no one was thinking that anyone in their right mind would "cry out" and interpret this piece of fluff in a "psycho-sexual" way. If they did, they would have dropped the scene like a hot potato.

Face it Ann. You screwed the pooch. Sometimes it's best to take your lumps, apologize, and move on.

But, what if Leap Year obliterates the chance for your birthday to fall on a Sunday?

You'd be shattered.

Can you imagine? Let's say you just celebrated your birthday on a Saturday, a couple of weeks ago. And then .....then you receive the upsetting news, that....Leap Year is coming up, and your birthday will skip a day and end up on Monday, next year.

NOOOOO !!!

You'd be crushed. Everyone is entitled to a Sunday birthday. But next year, Someone won't get His chance, to celebrate his birthday on God's Sabbath.

And, he's devastated...whether he admits it or not. We know he's upset about the whole thing, and feels horribly cheated.

It isn't always about what a director, writer or artist intends- the subconscious and subtext will arise despite and often. Ask any psychologist or *smart* ad industry insider (and I don't think the writer and director of this vid were particularly savvy). They study these things and market to our below-the-surface cravings and insecurities all of the time.

And Ann was having fun. But it was more fun for some of us because there was some truth in what she said. I won't forget for a long time the image of Bill dejectedly holding up his joyless little carrot stick that Hillary forced upon him. How was this not a scene of emasculation?